[oe] [PATCH] base.bbclass: fix soc-family test

[Maupin, Chase]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: openembedded-devel-bounces at lists.openembedded.org
> [mailto:openembedded-devel-bounces at lists.openembedded.org] On Behalf Of
> Frans Meulenbroeks
> Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 5:12 AM
> To: openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org; tsc at openembedded.org
> Subject: Re: [oe] [PATCH] base.bbclass: fix soc-family test
> 
> 2010/9/9 Phil Blundell <philb at gnu.org>:
> > On Thu, 2010-09-09 at 09:11 +0200, Frans Meulenbroeks wrote:
> >> 2010/9/2 Frans Meulenbroeks <fransmeulenbroeks at gmail.com>:
> >> > -                if this_soc_family and not re.match(need_machine,
> this_soc_family):
> >> > +                if (this_soc_family and not re.match(need_machine,
> this_soc_family)) or not this_soc_family:
> >> >                     raise bb.parse.SkipPackage("incompatible with
> machine %s" % this_machine)
> >
> > I am still far from convinced that this hunk of SOC_FAMILY code is
> > desirable to have in the first place but, if it's going to stay there,
> > clearly it should be fixed so that it doesn't cause problems for
> > non-users.
> >
> > So, yes, your patch looks fine to me.
> >
> > p.
> >
> Phil, thanks for the feedback.
> 
> I'm not too sure on the usefulness of it either, but there is some
> breakage so we should either revert the patch or fix it.
> 
> Actually the SOC_FAMILY got pushed before the review was concluded.
> Technically it got the ack's but the discussion was still ongoing when
> this was pushed.
> What also makes it fishy is that all acks are from the same company
> (which is the same one as the person who submitted the patch):
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chase Maupin <chase.maupin at ti.com>
> Acked-by: Denys Dmytriyenko <denys at ti.com>
> Acked-by: Koen Kooi <k-kooi at ti.com>
> Signed-off-by: Koen Kooi <koen at openembedded.org>
> 
> I would suggest modifying the commit policy disallowing these kind of
> things, saying the two Ack's must be from two developers not
> affiliated with the same company.
> (actually we might even want to take it further and saying that global
> changes that affect everyone would require ACK's from developers from
> more than one distro).
> 
> Question to the TSC: should the SOC_FAMILY patch be reverted and put
> on hold until there is agreement whether or not we want this?

Frans,

As the person who submitted this change I'd like to ask that it not be reverted.  I am using it currently so that when defining COMPATIBLE_MACHINE for recipes targeted at OMAP3 devices I do not have to keep a rolling list of all the various OMAP3 devices.  This can quickly become:

COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "dm37x-evm|am37x-evm|omap3evm|am3517-evm|beagleboard|......"

Instead by allowing SOC_FAMILY to be used as a COMPATIBLE_MACHINE this can be handled cleanly with:

COMPATIBLE_MACHINE = "omap3"

Please consider this use case.  I would much prefer if your fix was put into the base.bbclass than if this were removed.

> 
> Frans
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Openembedded-devel mailing list
> Openembedded-devel at lists.openembedded.org
> http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel